2007-04-03 20:42:03 · 11 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
UNITY IS INDISCERNIBLE IF NOT DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN UNITY AND NOTHINGNESS!
2007-04-03 20:51:52 · update #1
science may not know but philosophy knows the difference between unity and nothingness.
2007-04-06 18:46:25 · answer #1 · answered by nightingale 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps if you could define the parameters, using different words, the group could be of more help to you. The two concepts, in my mind, are not conducive to each other, even as opposites. For instance, using opposites, we might ask a question which wants us to compare obvious differences. The question would be formed as, "What is the difference between unity and chaos, or unity and disunity?"
Or give us a link to a site which is explaining the question and why it is being asked so we may more fully understand the reason for the question.
Posting the same confusing question time after time does not improve the odds of getting a reasonable answer.
2007-04-04 02:02:11 · answer #2 · answered by Slimsmom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science is a tool for objectively using our senses to collect information about the world around us. Philosophy is a subjective attempt to ascertain meaning from abstractions. Unity and nothingness are abstractions that carry different subjective meanings for all people. Any "difference" to be discerned between two subjective abstractions would require definitions from which to proceed.
2007-04-03 21:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with almost everyone here. My own reflections...: As of today, I'd say that Science is observable facts turned into ideas and theories through patterns, but philosophy is the opposite: ideas generating and checked by facts. Philosophy has an emphasize on the abstract, science on the concrete. Philosophy is pure, raw thought, science is 'processed thought.' As for the whole knowledge vs wisdom thing....I'm inclined to disagree, and say that science is based on observable(sp?) experience and therefore is more of wisdom, and philosophy is based on thought, and therefore is more of knowledge, but I suppose there is a case to be made either way.
2016-05-17 04:06:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
correct my error
but dont differences rely on characteristics
of which nothingness has none
and unity has all
2007-04-03 21:20:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mere creatures of no thought can discern these variations, so to assume that the intellect of those in the education, and those of the knowledge may not: would be seen as a disparaging view of our comprehensive abilities. Here it may be noted that without these abilities then yes. The interval that separates the singularity; and what lays in a nonexistent state is indeed transcendent.
2007-04-03 21:05:46 · answer #6 · answered by the old dog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean that science and philosophy do not understand the distinction between the one which is convertible with being (as in a being [ens] not simply being [existence]) and non-being? I'm not quite sure of your application of the distinction here....
2007-04-04 06:30:22 · answer #7 · answered by checkhead 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am so sick of the word "unity" and "nothingness"
Who really cares anymore?
Can you use other words, it migth make more senes
2007-04-04 00:42:27 · answer #8 · answered by clcalifornia 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothingness is, in fact, unity...
2007-04-04 01:31:47 · answer #9 · answered by Stewart 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science and Philosophy also cannot release out what is stuck in you due to constipation.
2007-04-04 01:30:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋